In recent weeks GamePolitics has devoted a substantial amount of ink to H.B. 353, the video game bill currently under consideration in Utah.

Yesterday, GP spoke with Rep. Mike Morley (R), the sponsor of the measure in the Utah House of Representatives. Morley offered his take on the proposal, which would amend the state's existing truth in advertising law to encompass products such as video games and movies which have age-based content recommendations.

Under Morley's bill, retailers who advertise that they won't sell certain types of content to minors and then do so would be at risk for false advertising claims.

Things got rather strange after the interview, as you will see. It's an instructive lesson in Utah power politics, among other things.

PART I: THE INTERVIEW

GP: Rep. Morley, can you address the origins of H.B. 353?

MM: I think that there’s a general concern that there are mature video games that are not appropriate for children but somehow end up in the hands of children, even despite best efforts of parents. And I think other friends and peers talk about some of [the games] that would be very inappropriate and they go in and purchase those. So the idea is simply to try to encourage retailers to live by their own policies, if they have those policies in place, and monitor that to the best of their ability.

It’s a small incremental step, and it’s not - I think we’ve taken it in a direction that I don’t know has been taken before. And it’s not, I don’t think it encroaches into the free speech or any of those areas. We’re not saying that, if a video retailer has a policy to go ahead and sell to minors, then that’s fine, there’s nothing that we can do about that. But if they purport to not sell to minors and they do that as a matter of practice I think that this just calls attention to that.

GP: What would be the penalties under the proposal if, for example a company said that they wouldn’t sell an M-rated game to a minor and one did get sold. What would be the penalty for that?

MM: Well, I don’t know if one got sold, I think we’re looking at it as a matter of practice. But it’s not trying to be a sting operation. What it does is that it basically opens [game retailers] up to the same code and the same civil penalties – it’s not a criminal action. So it would be the same penalties that they would be subjected to if they engaged in any other truth in advertising problem or claim. I’m not certain what the penalty is but it would be the same as any truth in advertising claim in Utah.

GP: I track the video game industry on a daily basis. They have made some strides over the last few years in their enforcement levels as measured by the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing their ratings. I think it was up to [an] 80% success rate in the most recent FTC report, and that's been increasing every year. Is there a concern that if now they have to feel like they are on the hook for this [new law], they may just not participate, [they may not bother to] say that they don’t sell games to minors. Is there a concern about that?

MM: I don’t think so. I think that most all retailers, in fact most all of the large ones have entered into a pledge not to do that. I think it encourages them to enforce their own standards and encourages them to be a little bit vigilant and say, hey, let’s not do this. But obviously, if they decide that [promising not to sell to minors] is too onerous, and they decide that that’s not a claim that they want to make, then, there would be no penalty under this provision.

(hit the jump for the rest...)

GP: Was this something that was an issue for you in the past? How did you come to bring this bill [before the legislature]?

MM: Last year I had a similar – a bill about pornography and about web presence, that kind of thing. Families for Decency, Eagle Forum, others have been champions of this cause in Utah. I’ve been a supporter of the effort. This is just another idea or effort to try to bring some consistency and to try to keep or at least help parents to protect their kids against games that they may not feel could be appropriate. Obviously in this situation if the parents thought the game was appropriate for their children they could go in and buy it and present it to them. There’s no penalty and were not trying to legislate what parents can do with their kids.

[Unintelligible] we recognize that these ratings are not governmental ratings and that they’re also ratings that are given by voluntary groups. So it’s not cut in stone. But I think it’s a good indication and I think as responsible retailers and responsible citizens we ought to be able to expect that if they’re claiming that they’re going to be kid-friendly and family-friendly and not promote or sell these kinds of games to minors, then they ought to work to enforce those policies.

GP: You mentioned the Utah Eagle Forum. Did they approach you in regard to drafting this legislation? Did that originate with them?

MM: They were one party that has been supportive of it, yes.

GP: I saw some comments that you made to Glen Warchol of the Salt Lake Tribune.

MM: I did talk to him, but I did not see what he wrote.

GP: There’s only one quote [from you] there: “This approach is constitutional. Will it be effective? Maybe not.” On the same day the Deseret News published an article about [the bill]. It said that you weren’t able to get a feel for the level of enthusiasm among your colleagues for the bill. How is that going? What are you hearing from colleagues in the Utah House at this point?

MM: I think it will be accepted well. I just got a draft and got language out. We haven’t had any hearings on it yet. So at this point, I haven’t heard any concerns from colleagues. I think it will be well accepted. I would be speaking out of turn to tell you that I’ve run it by the entire body and that they’re all in support. At this point I don’t know yet. But I think the concept is a good one. It’s not a big hammer.

I don’t know if Glen quoted me correctly. I may have said, it remains to be seen, obviously, whether it’s going to have a major or minor effect. But I think it brings some attention to the issue. It’s not a big hammer that everybody’s going to be happy with. I have spoken with the Utah retailers and I’ve spoken with their lobbyists and received their input in the drafting of the legislation and at this point they are not opposing the legislation. Now that may change, but at this point they’re not.

GP: The bill, we understand, was drafted by Jack Thompson, is that correct?

MM: No, actually. The bill was drafted by leg[islative] research here in Utah. Some of the concepts were given, but the language was mine.

GP: If the bill wasn’t drafted, it was conceived by Thompson? Would that be that fair to say?

MM: I have never met Jack. I’ve received a few e-mails with some input. But the concept was something that I’ve been working with Eagle Forum on for several months. So I don’t know to what level he has input.

GP: As I understand it, his take on his input is basically that he created the bill or drafted it. I guess that it’s been subsequently reworded by the legislative people, but that’s my understanding.

MM: As I indicated, I’ve never met him. So I don’t know to what level he has involvement. I know from others that he has been active in this for years and has tried a number of approaches, many of which have been unconstitutional. And so I’m aware of that.

GP: When will the hearings be for the bill, do you expect?

MM: I would expect within the next week or so we’ll have a House hearing on it.

GP: And who would you expect might testify on behalf of the bill at that hearing?

MM: I would expect that there would be a number of child advocacy groups that would probably take a position on it.

GP:Do you expect the Utah Eagle Forum to testify?

MM: Oh, I’m sure that that they would testify.

GP: Do you expect Jack Thompson to testify?

MM: I don’t know if he is going to try to come to testify or not.

GP: Did the [Utah] Attorney General’s office look over the legislation and give you an opinion on it?

MM: They feel like we handled the constitutional issues. I’m not going to speak for them but in general I think they liked this approach much better than things that have been tried in the past.

GP: Rep. Morley, I appreciate your time.

PART II - THE THREATS

So, that was the interview. Frankly I was surprised that Rep. Morley seemed to give Jack Thompson so little credit for the bill. So I sent Thompson the relevant segment of the interview transcript and asked him to comment.

At that point, things began to get, um, interesting. Rather than try to explain, I will let the remarkable sequence of e-mails which followed speak for themselves:

While I never doubted that Thompson had substantial input on the Utah bill, it seems that conservative power broker Gayle Ruzicka of the Utah Eagle Forum had "a chat" with Rep. Morley to bring him up to speed regarding Thompson's involvement with the bill.

MM: Yes. In speaking with Gayle Ruzicka from Eagle Forum, she indicated that Jack has been involved in the concept and involved in meeting with the Lt. Governor, has been here to Utah. I was not in Utah when he came, but he met with the Lt. Governor, met with some of the legislative staff. And at least the concept of what we’re working on apparently originated with him.

The language of the bill was done with legislative research and general counsel and has been modified a little bit, has been reviewed by the local A.G. and some retail representatives (5 sec interruption caused by doorbell and dogs barking on my end)… apparently he did have a considerable involvement in the effort.

GP: Thompson did.

MM: Yes, Thompson.

GP: Thanks for making that clarification. Anything else you want to add?

MM: I’m working with the group to try to put something together that makes sense and that is rational and will continue to work to that end.

GP: And how was Ms. Ruzicka with all of this?

MM: I think that she’s very supportive of the effort. She has encouraged me. When I talked to Gayle she basically said, “We’ll support, as long as you don’t do something that we’re opposed to. But this is your bill and this is your effort.” And that’s really the only way that I would run it. If I don’t have the ability to do what I need to do with my bill, then I’m not interested in being the primary sponsor.

GP: So, she’s also very supportive of Mr. Thompson, apparently.

MM: You’d have to talk to her about that. She’s very supportive of his vision and effort, I’m sure. And quite honestly, just to clarify one thing. I talked to Jack Thompson on the phone, just recently. He seems like a fine individual. I don’t have anything negative to say about him. Haven’t had extensive involvement with him, nor do I know him personally but I…[Morley’s cell phone dropped the call]…

PART IV - ONE FINAL e-MAIL

After his cell phone dropped the call, Rep. Morley followed up with this:

I just wanted to say that I support the Mr Thompson's concept in the form I currently have it drafted and applaud his enthusiasm in the effort to help parents and retailers keep games age appropriate. Thanks

I thought this was hilarious. Jack just sems to pick at random what he will sue people for. When he gave his opinion on the earlier article about "his" bill, he couldn't decide whether people who sold games were guilty of intent or negligence, two completely different things.

Let us imagine for a moment that not giving someone credit for a law they drafted, or were involved with drafting was libelous. In that case, would it not be Rep. Morley who would be sued? Dennis merely ASKED Morley whether Thompson was the originator/drafter of the bill. Morley said no, and then Dennis proceeded to clarify this statement.

If I were to give an interview with a magazine in which I wrongfully claim that Person X was a criminal, then I am the one comitting libel against Person X, not the magazine which prints my words.

I also think it's funny how instead of being this great crusader, he has to hide behind others. I imagine that it is a result of his disbarrment and disgraced name, that he behaves like a remora, attaching himself to a bigger more powerful creature (in this case the Eagle Forum and Gayle Ruzicka). This lets him push his petty little agenda with a different face and some more "credibility"* while staying near to pick up the scraps.

*(In no way do I believe that Gayle Ruzicka and the Eagle Forum are in any way credible, but unfortunately they do seem to have significant political pull in Utah. It's not a nice fact that this old woman, (who seems pretty intolerant and homophobic by a lot of accounts) and her lackeys have this influence, but what can you do?)

Jack Thompson is paranoid about not getting noticed, apparently. Maybe he is trying to show he's a productive member of society without being a lawyer anymore. Funny thing is, the rest of us figured out how to do that without being as sensitive as he is about being recognized.

The other parts of the interview were great too. Looks like the law isn't so big of a deal, unless there is something legally flawed about it like mentioned before.

Thompson sure didn't like not being given much credit for the bill, though. He probably also didn't like the fact that Morley mentioned that many of Thompson's past efforts were unconsititional. (Though I think the correct word would have been "all" not "many".)

Well, safest to say that the best interest of the people is served by (re)electing (insert name). /sarcasm

Tis is pity though. Ever notice that after the election that you never see the politician out shaking hands and kissing babies? Dont know much about this Michael Morley and find that I really dont care (or need) to, he has shown where his interests lie.

Seeing as I elect politicians to keep the public infrastructure running, not promote themselves with photo ops, I really don't mind that they aren't out shaking hands and kissing babies after the elections. In fact I rather they weren't before the election, and instead were busy with the job I'm paying taxes for them to do.

Not too surprised that Morley was unclear of Thompson's involvement. Politicians have teams to handle many of the details of any piece of legislation. This seems to be the case as Morley knew the names of the organizations that were helping to draft the bill but when it came to individuals he was a little clueless. Good interview.

And I can't help but post a Thompson pic. Would you look at his face? I think I've seen mobsters with a more honest mug.

Threats are the first refuge of someone who is afraid. Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent. Either would apply here. Classic jack. Dennis I salute you sir, I really dont how you manage to submit yourself to antics like that and remain civil.

Mmm as for the subject I am leaning toward Mr Morleys original statement being correct, that jacks involvement was mininal at best. The followup though is odd. This Ms. Ruzicka (jackies contact/savior apparently) becomes involved and the toon changes. Did not think the Eagle forum had that much political pull. Maybe its a Utah thing?

Everytime Jack Thompson threatens to sue GP, GP gains +100XP. If he uses the word "libel" in his threat multiply the gained XP by 2. If Jack Thompson includes porn with the threat GP instantly levels up then gains 3 times normal XP for the next 2 threats.

Can you overreact any more? I honestly don't think it is humanly possible to overreact more than you just did. How is it libelous to quote what someone else said about you? Dennis wasn't claiming you had no involvement in this bill. That was all Morley.

That is one epic tantrum. Within 3 hours of your email to Jack, he gets his buddies at Eagle Forum to convince Mike Morley it was important enough of an issue, Jack's involvement, that he needed to 'correct' his comments with you? This says many things:

1. Jack, in some shape or form, believes Game Politics to be an important publication. I mean, he seriously doesn't get this wound up about online news sites he constantly derides, insults, and otherwise thinks to be insignificant? Does he?

2. Jack has some pull with the leaders of Eagle Forum. Not surprising, they seem to be of the same mindset as he, but the turnaround time on this seems like it was pretty fast.

3. Eagle Forum has some significant pull with Mike Morley. Does he agree with them, do they have some other influence on him, speculative. But his tone really seemed to change in interview part-II to very highly stress Jack's involvement, and Morley's thoughts on Jack.

4. Jack Thompson is a world class narcissist. We all knew it.

5. Jack Thompson has no concept of legal terms, such as 'libel'. If posting, verbatim, what someone said in an interview is 'libel', every significant publication in the country would be guilty hundreds of times over. Again, we all knew it. It's just funny to see his consistent, constant failure. Like someone coming into a computer store pretending to be a literal guru of electronics, going on about 'jigapixels' and 'megaram', or claiming that a mac is good for anything (j/k)

Actually, persons who repeat defamatory statements may also generally be held liable for defamation. I'd say that Thompson loses on two other grounds. First, defamation requires a false statement of fact, and Morley was pretty clear that, although Thompson may have dealt with the Eagle Forom, Morley didn't have much contact with him. I doubt that's a false statement. Second, defamation of a public figure requires proof that the statement was made with malice, i.e., actual knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. Even if Morley made some false statements, it seems very likely that they were made negligently, at most.

Of course, there's also the question of how Thompson's reputation could possibly be harmed by any statements. I'm stumped on that one.

From what I gather, repeating a libelous statement doesn't automatically put you on the hook for libel. If you believed that the source statement was true and made in good faith then you're safe, although the amount of fact-checking you have to do to confirm a source statement depends on how big your audience is. If Morley's statements constituted libel, GamePolitics might get away with repeating the statements where CNN would be expected to do some fact checking.

In any case, if the dialogs are truthful then GP can't be guilty of libel unless Morley also is. And one gets the impression that he believed in good faith that he was telling the truth, and his statements don't really harm JT's reputation in any apparent way, so any libel case would probably fail on either of those grounds.

I think you'll find that they're guilty of libel for understating Jack's role in the matter. He is the center of the universe, after all, and has a hand in everything. Thus stating that Jack didn't have a central role in anything with which he is even loosely or tenuously involved is libel. This is basic first-year law school stuff, I'm sure.

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Simply posting a 'He said this:' with an exact quote from the person is not libel. Like I said, if it were every single news company would be guilty, because they quote peoples sayings all the time. Or have interviews with people who say things that are insulting and/or not true.

I'm willing to say with all belief, that JT does not know what Libel is. He called me on the phone a number of months ago, threatening libel (and then hanging up), for posting exact quotes of his, just like this.

If Jack Thompson thinks GP is important than I think that is a good thing. I mean, I think GP is important as it keeps gamers informed.

It was an impressive tantrum, I'm not going to lie. I could practically see his face turning all shades of red and tears forming in the corner of his eyes as I read his response. Maybe I translated it wrong but that first interview really seemed to get his panties in a bunch.

I'm still unsure of what to think of the change of story. Did Morley originally want nothing to do with Jack Thompson or did he simply forget about his involvement? That confusion is interesting to say the least.

To be honest, in the initial interview I fully expected him to credit Thompson, and I was ready to follow up with a question about how Thompson's disbarment played into the mix. But he didn't really credit JT so the question was irrelevant.

I was asking myself the same thing, was he really ignorant of the fact or just trying to play ignorant? Obviously Thompson didn't like how the original interview went O.o Wouldn't your question of the disbarment been relevant in the second interview though?

------------------------------------

I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

It is just seems strange to not be aware of who contributed to a bill in which you developed the language for. Also seems odd to not be fully aware of previous contacts/conversations you've had with an individual. Busy man I guess.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

ZippyDSMlee: .....win8 hates any left over hidden install partitions from other version of windows....only waste 5 hours finding that out...its ahrder than you think keeping up with 4 or 5 HDDS......03/03/2015 - 4:44am

Matthew Wilson: I am going to pax east, any games you guys want me to check out?03/02/2015 - 11:23pm

ZippyDSMlee: No one remembers the days of Cinemagic and Cynergy eh? :P, meh even MGS is getting to film like....03/02/2015 - 8:44pm

MechaTama31: I was about to get all defensive about liking Metal Gear Solid, but then I saw that he was talking about "cinematic" as a euphemism for "crappy framerate".03/02/2015 - 8:29pm

prh99: Just replace cinematic with the appropriate synonym for poo and you'll have gist of any press release.03/02/2015 - 5:34pm

Monte: Though from a business side, i would agree with the article. While it would be smarter for developers to slow down, you can't expect EA, Activision or ubisoft to do something like that. Nintnedo's gotta get the third party back.02/28/2015 - 4:36pm

Monte: Though it does also help that nintendo's more colorful style is a lot less reliant on graphics than more realistic games. Wind Waker is over 10 years old and still looks good for its age.02/28/2015 - 4:33pm

Monte: With the Wii, nintnedo had the right idea. Hold back on shiny graphics and focus on the gameplay experience. Unfortunatly everyone else keeps pushing for newer graphics and it matters less and less each generation. I can barely notice the difference02/28/2015 - 4:29pm

Monte: ON third party developers; i kinda think they should slow down to nintendo's pace. They bemoan the rising costs of AAA gaming, but then constantly push for the best graphics which is makes up a lot of those costs. Be easier to afford if they held back02/28/2015 - 4:27pm

Matthew Wilson: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/28/the-world-is-nintendos-if-only-theyd-take-it/ I think this is a interesting op-ed, but yeah it kind of is stating the obvious.02/28/2015 - 2:52pm